About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
and morality are essential to the good of massachusetts. this last until 1833. i think jon and i are arguing the flipside of, arguing the opposite side of the coin but i don't think we are in disagreement at all. >> we have time for one more question. in the back in the red sweater. >> i'm curious to your answer, we have members of the supreme court today that feel they should rule their decisions on what the people were thinking at the time of the constitution being written. now, where'd you come down on something like that? [applause] >> you give me a pointer to the supreme court, i'd be happy to set them straight. [laughter] look, the question of original intent is one that historians by and large reject. i'm also a lawyer so i don't rejected quite as quickly as historians do. what the supreme court has said again and again, this is interesting, important and interesting, the one provision of the constitution that should be bounded by its history is the first amendment. you see that over and over again in the supreme court cases. so even the members of the court to reject the notion of or
in all kinds of forms. he has paired with jon stewart on "the daily show." he has been on charlie rose and has is done inoperable talk shows and is incredibly adept at not answering questions that i want him to answer. [laughter] so i'm going to try. i'm going to try. >> i was waiting for a complement. [laughter] >> that was a compliment. that was a complement. in the beginning of your remarks he talked about public diplomacy and what a challenge it was for both our countries. you were quoted recently as talking about remarks he made at pakistan's national defense university where you asked your audience who pakistan's enemy was. u.s. them how many of them thought that al qaeda was the enemy and not too many raised their hands. u.s. them whether india was the enemy and not too many raised their hands in the new estimate the united states with the enemy and there is where you got most of the hands raised. i think that is something that people in this country just find inexplicable, just can't understand. they say my gosh we have given pakistan $20 billion over the past eight or nine yea
on a diet. i'm going to add calories to my excluded food intake." unquote. that was jon stewart. he hit the nail on the head. for sure it's easy to make fun but what the president is trying to do with tax expenditures is no laughing matter. liberals talk about tax expenditures as though they were just getting rid of wasteful spending. first, as a legal matter, tax expenditures are not spending. outlays are checks cut from the treasury department are defined as spending under the congressional budget act. that's what spending is. yet, most tax expenditures only lose revenue and do not include an outlay portion. tax expenditures that only lose revenue contain no spending as defined by the congressional budget act and is scored by the official scorekeepers for congress. the joint committee on taxation and the congressional budget office. and second, as a policy matter twhe comes to tax -- when it comes to tax expenditures, one person's loophole is another person's opportunity to save for college and retirement, finance a home and ties to your -- taoeugts -- tithes to your church. reducing
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3